Parliamentary supremacy and the Speaker's corner
by Duncan Cameron at rabble.ca
"Most people expect Speaker Peter Milliken, a Liberal, to sidestep the issue of parliamentary supremacy; he may issue a rebuke to the Harper government, but acknowledge the legitimacy of cabinet ministers making their own secrecy determinations."I'd love to see him rule that the Harperite stance is illegitimate, but I fear he won't. But will they get away with this?
"The Conservatives have breached international law by handing over of Afghan detainees to be tortured, and should be prosecuted under the Geneva Convention, irrespective of the Speaker's ruling. We do not need additional proof or "secret" documents in order to arrive at that conclusion. But we do need to face the issue of disregard for parliament raised by the Harper government on a daily basis, irrespective of any crimes it has committed."And what of the whistleblower Richard Colvin, one the people supposedly given "real protection" by Harper and his Accountability Act?
"Richard Colvin is the Canadian diplomat who raised the issue of torture inside the government. He was called to testify before a parliamentary committee on what he knew, and when he knew it. While making his testimony, on orders of the Conservatives, he was denied access to his own emails.
A public servant called as a witness before a parliamentary committee and unable to access his own work while testifying? Even George Orwell did not imagine tyranny being that imaginative. Every Conservative MP deserves to be defeated in the next election."
So, "real protection" consists of piling on Colvin as soon as he opens his mouth, virtually calling him a liar, misrepresenting his work, and then taking cover behind a pile of redacted documents as high as the Berlin Wall?
I feel a major depression coming on...again.